English Chess Forum

Wales is pretty strict about that, though. There might be some other federations that aren't, mind you.

_________________
http://westcountrychess.blogspot.com

Shouldn't Yorkshire be paying for the use of the ECF database ? If the ECF have produced ECF grades at a cost are they copyrighted in some way ?
It doesnt seem right that Yorkshire should financially piggyback in this way to produce their grades more cheaply.

I don't know enough about it, but we have no rights to either their use of the ECF grading algorithm, or their actual results. What of the ECF's are they actually using?

_________________
February 16-17: 2013 BUCA Team Championship
April 20: 2013 British Blitz Championship
July 27-August 10: 100th British Chess Championships

I suspect the answer would be similar to that of Feist v Rural, and Yorkshire would win such a case.

_________________
http://westcountrychess.blogspot.com

I suppose you could try to deny them the non-published parts of the data. Probably the Yorkshire grader gets the whole database so that he can do the ECF part of his work.

We had someone from Bradford on the forum a while back extolling the virtues of the Yorkshire system . He seemed a bit put out when we reminded him that Yorkshire were paying rather less towards financing the ECF than the rest of the country.

Just the number as I understand it. A number cannot be copywrighted, otherwise I'll copywrite Pi thanks, oooh and e too!

I think originally GPO postcodes were protected in some way and could only be used in certain ways. Thompsons Local got into trouble when they reproduced it.

ECF grades aren't just numbers when considered as a whole. There are some subjective or creative elements involved, for example the level of grades, the spread and the size and selection of the control group used in the 2009 rehash.

"Credits: I am grateful to the ECF for allowing use of their their codes and grades, and allowing links to their web-pages. " - http://www.chessnuts.org.uk/ny5/

By the way I have no problem with that at all, it's just one more reason why we need to continue to deliver a good grading service, and why it needs to be integrated with the members database, whatever option we vote for.

_________________
Adam Raoof
FIDE International Organiser and Arbiter
Hampstead International Congresses - http://www.hampsteadchess.blogspot.co.uk
http://www.chessengland.com

Good job you don't have anything against it; I don't think you'd have a case if you did! They can use that information all they like.

_________________
February 16-17: 2013 BUCA Team Championship
April 20: 2013 British Blitz Championship
July 27-August 10: 100th British Chess Championships

You do realise, I hope, that the continued existence of the Yorkshire grading system enables the local Yorkshire leagues to opt out of funding the ECF, whatever method you choose for funding.

I'm sure Adam realises. What would you like Adam and the ECF to do to stop them? As far as I can see, everything is a double-edged sword: banning them from the Counties (as I think you've previously suggested) would hurt relations even more, and make them even less likely to want to fund the ECF. The other option is to try to build a bridge to bring them on board, but I would imagine that takes some time. I certainly wouldn't know what to do about it... A good job it's not my decision.

_________________
February 16-17: 2013 BUCA Team Championship
April 20: 2013 British Blitz Championship
July 27-August 10: 100th British Chess Championships

Competition is supposed to be good right?

Exactly. I don't have any problem with it, I think it obliges the ECF to provide better services for members - and hopefully they will choose to join the ECF as a result. If we are all-membership, it's even more crucial to deliver those services and add more value to membership in a way that players can see - for instance a really revamped national grand prix with a good prize fund, but obligations on organisers in return.

_________________
Adam Raoof
FIDE International Organiser and Arbiter
Hampstead International Congresses - http://www.hampsteadchess.blogspot.co.uk
http://www.chessengland.com

Of interest to regular Congress players, but of no interest to a League player only intending to play a couple of Congresses a year, if that.

Andrew's numbers for membership costs were just enough to finance the ECF. There wasn't anything left over for bells and whistles.

If the sanction for non-member league players is that their grade is withheld, you might expect to see competition from private grading schemes. Still if the ECF is after central membership, it's the ECF's problem to market membership and persuade people to join. If you can't convince those who don't play much of why they should join, you are going to lose even the modest income you get today from the events they play in.

Roger, this is what I've been saying all along. I don't think it's good for the ECF to rely on funding from such sources anyway. You can never please all of the people all of the time, if some of them do pay, this will make up in part for those who don't wish to. Other funding sources, (i.e. creative ones I've been detailing,) should be able to make up the shortfall in the long-term, and we can hope it will be more attractive to sponsors / realise the benefits of a centralised membership scheme.

The point is that people who play only a few games a year shouldn't be the main focus of the ECF - they are a minority, that the ECF can welcome, but shouldn't base policy around.